Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glenarden council advances interim city manager contract amid objections over procurement and pay
Summary
Council approved moving forward with a professional-services contract to appoint William F. Garner as interim city manager starting June 23; several council members objected to the contract format, lack of an attached budget line and whether an RFP was required under the charter.
Glenarden City Council moved forward on June 4 with a resolution on the docket to approve an interim city manager contract for William F. Garner, but the item drew sustained questions from council members about procurement transparency and how the contract is funded.
Councilwoman Cross questioned the contract’s form and the absence of a clear budget line, telling colleagues that "the interim agreement doesn't have a budget line number" and that a biweekly pay figure shown in the draft could push the compensation above the $6,000 procurement threshold when calculated monthly. Several council members asked whether the administration should have used a temp agency or issued a more formal hiring process instead of contracting an individual.
Councilman Herring argued that the city charter contains a professional services exception allowing the council to engage technical or professional services without a competitive RFP, saying, "We do not have to bid for professional services," and characterizing a city manager as a unique professional role historically handled without competitive bids. Other council members pushed for greater transparency about how the contract would be paid and for a clear end date and budget-line identification.
An administration official said staff had reached out to multiple agencies for qualified interim candidates and that bringing Garner on as a contractor avoids temp-agency fees; the administration also reported that a short-term authorization under $5,990 had previously been used through June 22, and the contract on the docket would begin June 23. The clerk and staff confirmed the contract for the longer interim term was submitted for legal sufficiency review.
Council members recorded a motion, second and vote "to move forward" with Mr. Garner, according to a councilmember’s point of order; the transcript records that the professional services contract was reviewed for legal sufficiency but does not provide a roll-call vote or individual tallies in the record.
The council directed staff to follow up on the procurement questions and to provide clearer budget-line information for the contract; members said they want a process and language that make clear whether the appointment is a contractor engagement or an employee appointment and how it will be charged in FY27.
